Artikel-Navigation

My German is very rusty but if you’re saying what I think you are about the aging of the hobby, I just don’t think the data support your conclusion. That is, even though I think your conclusion is very likely correct.Briefly, if you look at the methodology, the survey was composed entirely self-selected respondents, out of those people who found out about it primarily through the web.Do 7-14 year-olds frequent the places on the web where the survey was advertised? Are they as inclined as 35 year olds to visit the survey site and answer the questions? Obviously I have no way of knowing, and that’s the point. As the text itself says, „It is important to note that the demographic profiles are not an attempt to map out the population of game players in any representative fashion. We are not trying to say that over 85% of all gamers are from the US. We are saying that 85% of the respondents to the survey are from the US.“So no, all the numbers show is that the people who answered the survey tended to be in their 30s and 40s, and it suggests that most of the respondents started gaming in their preteens or early teens. (Although note, a lot of the people who started in their teens are among the ~20 percent who are currently gaming in their 20’s.)In short, it’s very possible that the numbers you’re pointing to are simply the result of middle-aged gamers having a greater access to the web than younger ones, a greater inclination to visit gaming sites, and a greater willingness to fill out surveys.

I’m totally with you on this one. What is more interesting is are the motivations for play. And they are based on large enough a sample to be valid, you could always refilter the numbers (which we haven’t seen yet) through the actual age distribution.Thanks for taking the hassle of reading my blog! May all your hits be crits,Settembrini

Yes, the motivations are interesting. Unfortunately the writeup is muddled on a few of them when it comes to the „non-statistically-significant factors“. In fact I’m not even sure what it means by that–the implication of the bit on them not being scientifically sound is that the sample was too small to draw conclusions. But the discussion goes on as if „non-statistically-significant“ meant „statistically non-significant“.Aside from that the explanation for why minis gamers aren’t interested in their games as „catalyst for socializing“, while board wargamers are, makes no sense whatsoever. And the discussion of „pleasurable immersion“ is based on a concept of „immersion“ as „getting into character“, which is problematic given the factor’s description as „reduce stress; playing, not watching; feeling immersed; really getting into the game“. Note that „feeling immersed“ isn’t defined! I don’t remember if the survey itself used language that was equally vague or if it clearly referenced „getting into character“.So at this point I’m dubious about the conclusions in the article.I think I’ll repost these issues to the wargamer forum thread where the article is being discussed.